This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
When the Law Falls Silent
When the Law Falls Silent
By
Cognitive Dissonance
It was just a little more than a month ago that I posted “The Grand SCOTUS Facade” on Zero Hedge. If I may be so bold as to shamelessly quote myself, ”But if the supremacy of The Empire is threatened by external or internal forces those very same three governmental branches, either separately or in unison, will act to protect The Empire and its special interests………and the Constitution be damned if it gets in the way.”
In the very next paragraph I go on to declare,” For example in decades past the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) affirmed slavery in America and then approved by abstention Abraham Lincoln’s blatantly unconstitutional power grab from the states, only to rule against it after the Civil War had ended and the damage had been done. Incredibly they even ratified the corralling of US citizens of Japanese descent during WW2 and the taking of their property without compensation.”
I’ll be the first to admit that I love the warm and fuzzy feeling of having my bias confirmed. From my perspective, that of the so called fringe point of view, my confirming stroke usually comes from reading other like minded people who have reached similar conclusions following different paths. Rarely do I receive affirmation from the mainstream media nor would I expect to. One must read between the lines when perusing the state media for the actual intent and meaning behind the public propaganda.
So I was a bit surprised to discover that none other than U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was the latest to provide me with that deliciously naughty feeling I get between my toes when my confirmation bias has just been tickled. Thank you Justice Scalia. I won’t tell my wife if you won’t tell yours.
Its one thing to discuss among friends, neighbors and alternative media the potentially revolutionary idea that The Empire has no legal clothes. It’s another entirely when one of The Empire’s Supreme Court justices says it in his out loud voice. Wow! Clearly Justice Scalia is seated on the SCOTUS for life because no instrument of State who needs to be re-appointed, re-elected or just really interested in staying employed by the State would ever speak such truth to power.
What I find really interesting is the manner in which he delivered the bomb shell personal opinion, that of someone who was confirming what we all already know to be true. Duh……when push comes to shove isn’t it obvious the State has no legal clothes?
Replying to a question from a University of Hawaii law school student regarding the 1944 Korematsu v. United States Supreme Court decision that affirmed the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two, Justice Scalia is quoted as saying "Well, of course, Korematsu was wrong. And I think we have repudiated in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again."
Ummm….actually Justice Scalia, it was the propaganda spouting system itself, personified by all the King’s horses and all the King’s men, who has been kidding me into believing that my “rights’ are supreme and will be held above all other interests because “We the People” hold these truths to be self evident.
Scalia went on to explain "That's what was going on — the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That's what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It's no justification, but it is the reality."
That’s a relief. Just as long as my constitutionally protected ‘rights’ are unilaterally abridged by The Empire, then the rape upheld by The State’s Supreme Court Justice’s because of deliberate public fear mongering fanned by manufactured State propaganda in order to herd the population into cutting off their noses to spite my face….well, I’m down with that dawg. All good here bro.
The various mainstream press reports, all of which read nearly word for word as if quoting a press release, then go on to mention this little gem. “Scalia cited a Latin expression meaning, "In times of war, the laws fall silent."” Interestingly not one newspaper decided to name the actual Latin phrase, assuming I suppose that their readers would not care to know or that the assembled reporters repeaters didn’t understand the phrase and needed it explained to them by the students in the room. That phrase is “Inter arma enim silent leges”.
Thankfully there was a legal expert in the room (other than Justice Scalia of course) to interpret the words of the Supreme Priest who was clearly off his meds and once again mindlessly ranting in public.
The Associated Press informed us that “Avi Soifer, the law school's dean, said he believed Scalia was suggesting people always have to be vigilant and that the law alone can't be trusted to provide protection.”
Well, if you can’t trust the law who, or what, can you trust? After all aren’t we a nation of laws? Doesn’t the law apply to everyone, rich or poor, educated and ignorant? Am I to assume that this ‘mistake’ by the Supreme Court was comparable to the mistake I made last night when I sprinkled too much red pepper in the spaghetti sauce? Oops, sorry Mrs. Cog, my bad. Here, have some cold water to wash that mistake away.
“Soifer said it's good to hear Scalia say the Korematsu ruling was wrong, noting the justice has been among those who have reined in the power of military commissions regardless of the administration.”
Ok! So am I to assume that Scalia is one of the good guys? Too bad there are eight other Justices who could form a majority to confirm that my death or internment at the hands of The Empire was lawful and righteous at the first sign of public fear and panic in response to a (highly likely) false flag attack or similar State sponsored provocation.
"We do need a court that sometimes will say there are individual or group rights that are not being adequately protected by the democratic process," Soifer said.
Is Soifer talking about the Supreme Court that is supposedly immune to public, governmental and corporate pressure and is ultimately tasked with protecting my ‘rights’ above all else? You mean to say that not only the law, but the arbiters of the law, might not actually uphold my rights because of public, governmental or corporate pressure? Say it ain’t so Soifer, say it ain’t so.
Another source provides an additional quote that did not seem to make it into the mainstream media’s ‘repeating’ of Scalia’s soon-to-be-regretted comments. Of note was Scalia’s interpretation of the function of the Supreme Court of the United States.
“"The function of the court is not to keep the other two branches (legislative and executive) in line; that's not what we're for. We're there to stop harm to individuals," Scalia said.”
Interesting observation Justice Scalia, considering you just admitted that your colleagues from 1944 failed to do precisely that when the law fell silent in the face of government warmongering which in turned fanned the flames of public panic and blatant political and racial scapegoating. And I might add, a government which is doing the same thing during today’s “Global War against Terrorism” by condoning Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, extralegal killings/executions, death by drone etc.
I suspect Scalia was following the time honored tradition of politicians, despots and scalawags everywhere and speaking ‘for local consumption’. After all, he was speaking in Hawaii to a group of young adult law students, some of whom likely have family, friends, and possibly even distant relatives who were actually interned or deported during that wonderful experiment in truth and justice for all (except of course for US citizens of Japanese descent) during World War Two.
Let me quote from Josh Blackman’s blog. “Having an independent judiciary that, even in times of war, can check the other branches, is the last line of defense. This is the point Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown conveys. ““With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations. Such institutions may be destined to pass away. But it is the duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up.””
Got that Justice Scalia? Let me repeat that just in case you were busy confirming your own bias. “But it is the duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up.”
Of course the above “Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.” opinion by the 1952 Supreme Court was speaking about the actions of the President “to avert a nationwide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense” by issuing an Executive Order to seize and operate the steel mills.
By the time the Executive Order was overturned by the SCOTUS, a scant two months later, the intent of the order (to avert a strike) had been accomplished and no personal liberties or ‘rights’ had been completely trampled in the process. So it is safe to say that the SCOTUS ruling was a ‘safe’ decision that could be presented as maintaining the facade of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ without actually encumbering or dissuading The Empire from its relentless pursuit of cronyism and expanded power.
I often say that the true measure of a society is how well it takes care of its weakest citizens. I shall amend that to say that the true measure of a society is how well it adheres to its own laws, which were supposedly put in place to protect its weakest citizens, during times of political stress or war.
The facade that constitutes the ‘belief’ that America adheres to a higher standard in all things American, including “The Law of the Land”, is not just crumbling, but wasn’t real to begin with…..except of course when it was convenient to those who held, and presently hold, the true power in America these days, the financial/military/corporate powerhouses including the mega banks and their idiot savant, the Federal Reserve.
02-15-2014
Cognitive Dissonance
Introducing a portal into the mind of Cognitive Dissonance. www.TwoIceFloes.com
- advertisements -
"But if you have left the city and the "sad state of society" you have
abandoned precisely the "weakest" whose mandated support you seem to
want to judge society by."
First of all I did not leave 'the city'. I was living in a very rual suburb of a city, 50 miles from the city center. But even there I was among people who did not have the same view of life as I did. I could have stayed and been surrounded by those who do not want to help themselves, but demand my help. Those are not the weakest I refer to.
I have mandated nothing. I have an opinion that I try, and often fail, to live up to. I expect no one else to do anything they do not wish to do. I decided to move to a place where I could find like minded people, and I did. But even here many people have the same dysfunctional issues society at large has.
"I want nothing but my own personal natural rights. I want my
sovereignty regained from your beloved "weakest" people who think that
their needs trump my freedom. In short I want the right of secession."
You seem to think it is the weakest who are constraining you. I think you are wrong. And you have the right to secession. Go ahead and take it, though I suggest you find a group of like minded people to band with. As well I suspect it will not be the weakest who will try to prevent your secession.
"You seem to think that the needs of the weak transcend your right of free association."
I would be interested in discovering how you have come to that conclusion. I wasn't talking about the "rights" of the weakest to 'demand" assistance. I was talking about the measure of a society that either ignores or responds to the needs of the truly weakest.
Maybe we need to discuss what is meant by "weakest". My elderly neighbor is an example of what I term 'weakest". I am not talking about people who abuse and use the system to take what they could actually provide for themselves if they wanted to.
I am going to risk defending Confederate.
How do you help the weak-minded? (Note: If people can plunder, I assume they could help themselves if mentally and spiritually sound) Personally, I love seeing a trouble-maker join the military and come back home. The change in character can be mind blowing. Once again, the state get in the way of fixing the problem, because the fix requires the implementation of discipline until the individual can implement self-discipline. Once the individual starts respecting himself he starts respecting others. The state views disciplne of the young as abuse, so I have little hope.
Per Cog, you seem like a good man, but Confederate is right. The nation is our society and because you state you judge a society by how the society deals with its weakness, running away and picking a local society that will do just fine without you does create some hypocrisy.
Per Confederate write less defiantly. You make debatable points.
"....running away and picking a local society that will do just fine without you does create some hypocrisy."
I do appreciate your feedback here.....but you really don't know what you're talking about. I moved from one of the richest counties in Virginia to one of the poorest, one of the youngest to one of the oldest, one with a great income producing opportunity to one with nearly the least, one with the highest population growth rate to one with a declining population 15 years running.
When I held out my hand to help in my old community it was slapped away as not enough. It was never enough. When I hold my hand out here to help it is gratefully accepted. I can do so much more here than I could in my old community because the people here, while proud and reluctant to accept outside help, are more than willing to give back as much or more than they receive. In my old place many people, not just the 'weakest', expected from others what they would never consider giving. The entitlement mentality was thick.
If this make me a hypocrite I wear the badge with honor.
Cog,...I am sure you are a good intelligent ZHer.
I think Confederate agrees with you that it is impossible to help the weakest in the current politically, intellectualy, arrogantly corrupt urban ivy league led society. I assume you are from Northern Virginia where the intelletual arrogance runs high and they stopped you from helping your fellow men.
We may also have disagreement over "help". Giving handouts is not helping in my dictionary as it is just appeasement for selfish reasons.
I do not give handouts. But I do give a helping hand.....as we recently did during the storms with the elderly couple down the dirt road from us.
This is what I mean by helping the 'weakest'.
"Those are not the weakest I refer to." "I suspect it will not be the weakest who will try to prevent your secession."
Wrong answer slave. Are you completely ignorant of the implications of the Obama/Jarret/Holder policies of disparate impact or the civil rights act? Or even of the war of northern aggression? We of the white northern european persuasion bear the "white mans" burden. That burden includes providing for the welfare of those who due to accident of birth were born with a lower IQ due to genetics and are hence deemed "weak" by the left who love to prognisticate about this sort of thing instead of producing wealth. You may not own the current definition of the word "weak", but you have implicitly accepted your share of the white mans burden by tieing the quality of a society to their welfare.
'White man's burden'
You arrogant fuck.
So you need to use sunscreen. That makes you better than those that don't?
Please explain how this works.
"That burden includes providing for the welfare of those who due to accident of birth were born with a lower IQ due to genetics"
If my understanding is correct, and I believe some of your comments demonstrate that it may be, when ethnic I.Q.'s are measured on a bell curve you will find many blacks with higher I.Q.'s than many whites. The same applies to Asians and Jews who generally fall in the upper percentiles. Just as you will find those of the "white northern european persuasion" all over the map on a bell curve.
"Which of course is a mute point when you consider that I.Q. is not very accurate as a predictor of accomplishment, value, or behavior."
Actions have consequences and we do not necessarily dictate the nature of the consequences. THe past has a tendency to catch up with us, just as our actions today will impact the children of the future.
Whoops sorry, we must have typing from different realms of the internet together lol.
"So I was a bit surprised to discover that none other than U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was the latest to provide me with that deliciously naughty feeling I get between my toes when my confirmation bias has just been tickled."
Alas Cog, do not revel long in knowing the truth. Often times it leads to great depression and sadness as the manufactured illusion usually wins.
In 2011 I posted the following re Scalia and Thomas (Note: Since the last election I have posted maybe 3 times and I primarily keep the site up for my own reference so this no attempt to push the site).
Feb 2011
http://www.bigbendbikersforfreedom.com/2011/02/supreme-court-going-once-...
Nov 2011
http://www.bigbendbikersforfreedom.com/2011/11/supreme-court-still-for-s...
Also posted somewhere but no time to search it was the immenient domain fiasco in Rivera Beach Florida
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/10/18/developers-consider-suing-florid...
and the tables turning on Justice Souter
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8406056/#.UwDZPEK5d98
And although as per usual the MSM made no stink about the above, the news was out and enough people knew of the news to make a hell of a stink. But you see, it wasn't happening to them.
So first you had Immenient Domain, followed by Citizens United vs FEC (apologies for the way my brain makes connections).
The internment of the Japanese should not surprise anyone as subtle changes in Ricco and Florida, and other states, redefinitions of gangs is not a problem either because you see, it does not apply to us. It keep "US" safe?
Look further down the food chain to Goldman Sachs relationship with Redtech and the redlight camera law in Florida. Which has resulted in increased accidents and deaths, but more importantly increased revenue for municipalities who were implementing the law illegally untl the Florida legislature changed the law in favor of the MONEY! (I use this as a microcosm of the very much larger picture).
And let us not forget the massive illegal internement of "all" Americans as, even as I type this, probationer's monitored by private companies, across the counntry are being unconstitutionally thrown into debtors prisons.
https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/displayArticle.aspx?articleid=25683&Aspx...
"What I find really interesting is the manner in which he delivered the bomb shell personal opinion, that of someone who was confirming what we all already know to be true."
Yes it is interesting. Also scary as hell. Could it be that we have reached the point where "they" no longer need to wear clothes? That they feel emboldened enough by the publics history of bitching but not acting, or even if motivated to act, e.g. occupy, they know the governments actions will be so swift and brutal those indignant over the abuses will run like hell?
At an Occupy organization meeting one time I heard a student say, oh I can't be involved in this, I might go to jail.
I almost puked!
To her I would say, "if not now, when"
To the rest of America I would say "Argue for your illusions and they are yours"
Both quotes by Richard Bach from the book "illusions" free to read online.
Sorry to go on like this, but for you Cog, I say tread slowly.....It is a painful road you are traveling. Don't stop though (Grin).
Suspect I will spend much time reading your site.
+1
For...
Yes it is interesting. Also scary as hell. Could it be that we have reached the point where "they" no longer need to wear clothes? That they feel emboldened enough by the publics history of bitching but not acting, or even if motivated to act, e.g. occupy, they know the governments actions will be so swift and brutal those indignant over the abuses will run like hell? -- akarc
Yes. Add to the attacks on Occupy, extra-ordinary rendition, indefinite detention, extra-judicial execution... Not to mention a supposedly ubiquitous no such agency.
The next "protest" needs be not only massive, but "legal".
Politics is war by other means.
On a ferry trip over to Bainbridge island last year I read historical placks about the Japanese involvement in the early 20th century strawberry business. It stated that by 1940 the strawberry production was the largest in the western US. By 1942, after the internment of all the Japanese Americans, the industry collapsed.
Just a little economic retribution for the unwarranted subjugation of people.
I bet next time it will be more than strawberries.
yes, the law has always been convenient to the times. that is all he is saying. it doesn't really matter what structure of .gov that is referenced. that is why central .gov is the most honest .gov. the people know they are getting screwed because .gov is kind enough to tell them they are screwed. this democracy/republic charade hides a gutter slut behind makeup and a nice dress.
Read all about it.
Scalia says mob rule OK, read all about it...
Get your newspaper here.....
The American delusion is that our courts follow the law, or that talented lawyers argue about the law before judges. The US courts follow and argue over precedents, or prior decisions of other judges. As Justice Marshall wrote in 1803, "The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right." Our courts deserve our scorn for acting on precedents based upon the whims, corruptions or other malfeasances of judges.
What Jefferson wrote about our courts is even more true today: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control."
Power corrupts. Black robes do not cleanse a sleazy lawyer.
Scalia's an interesting character, kind of like the "crazy aunt in the attic" we used to talk about back in the day.
here's another Scalia-ism on grand juries:
More recently, in United States v. Williams, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia held, writing for the majority of the court, that "[t]he grand jury's functional independence from the Judicial Branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing and in the manner in which that power is exercised. 'Unlike [a] court, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury "can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not."'" [504 U.S. 36, 48 (1992) (quoting United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991)]
Speaking of the origins of the grand jury, Scalia also found that "the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the government and the people. Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has been, so to speak, at arm's length. Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office." [ Id. at 47]
http://www.citizensgrandjury.com/120420-klayman.php
here's another in tangential reference to the Private Attorney General clause in various federal statutes (this particular case being a civil rights one) : “Where the courts, in the supposed interest of all the people, do enforce upon the executive branch adherence to legislative policies that the political process itself would not enforce, they are likely . . . to be enforcing the political prejudices of their own class.”
http://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2065/Issue%202/4%20Stearns%...
most have interepted that statement as being prejudiced against PAG's as being a detriment to the power the executive branch through its prosecution arm, but in light of his recent comments, and the realization by "the people" that members of the 3 branches all share the same "class", i'm wondering what he was really saying in this statement, especially since the RICO statutes were written & passed by Congress
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/ProsecutingaRICOClaim.html
Great piece, CD. They did not inter German Americans because there were too many of us, and many, like Eisenhower, proved quite useful.
I remember seeing a brief piece years ago, which claimed that Japanese Americans serving in the military were allowed to continue in their posts, and many served with distinction. Great research topic for some aspiring writer, and no end of contradictions.
Much easier to whip up hatred and venom toward those we do not look like us or who we do not relate to culturally. The minority is always easy prey for the majority.
'Democracy' is the tyrrany of the many over the few.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese-American_service_in_World_War_II
Great link for anyone interested in Japanese/Americans serving in Europe!
Not sure I would have done that.
All self respecting African parents would discourage use of the left hand, in particular, to write with. They see it as a curse or bad luck/omen for the future; how fitting in his case. . .
The uncouth, gangly, cack-handed piece of shit does not pen those executive orders with a hand but a twisted fucking claw.
Sorry CD for my use of words as they're no really ma cup o' tea.
Left handedness has been seen, since the time of Classical Greece, as a sign of homosexuality. Not always true of course, and you would play hell getting a study published, but there seems to be some truth in it.
Here's something even more odd. Left handed males have a reduced life expectancy, about 17 years! I think that's from Harper's, but if it's anything like that, it warrants some investigation.
Left, in Latin is 'sinster'
Yes, I remember something similar in Shakespeare.
Latest studies show there is a small part of the mind that depending on its shape can indicate homosexual tendancies.
I would gues the left handed data correlated to people who others have tried to change and they have stood fast and therefore are more apt to come out and not be afraid of others.
Opening closed minds is more difficult than closing open minds - exponentially.
My daughter rides horses (10 y/o) I asked her yesterday how do you feel when you are cantering your horse? Response "free".
SCROTUS
PUTAS
Toot toot toot my tin horn.
Good luck with your website Cog. I look forward to your writing.
Also hope to see comments from some of the people (now banned)
who added spice here on ZH jump back into the fray.
Good health and prosperity to you and Mrs. Cog.
Thank you.
Gobs of credit to Mrs. Cog who has done all the heavy lifting over the last two months as webmaster. The learning curve has been steep with plenty of pot holes and cul-de-sacs. Through it all she has kept her composure and humor while also contributing considerable content to the website.
While TwoIceFloes.com is the culmination of our inspiration, it is most certainly the result of her perspiration. Thank you Mrs. Cog.
An executive order is a polite way of saying: fuck you.
The best fuck yous are always dressed up in pomp and circumstance. And don't forget the "legal" bow on top.
i dispise bows... at least a tie has a function:)
OK.....I've got to ask.
And the function of the tie is...........male plumage? :)
each individual- ultimately representing freedom/liberty with that individual being resposible for being educated, informed and acting accordingly to uphold the laws. we are way way beyond reform. hence my handle new game. my sugestion is find a pack and plan accordingly... i have not lost hope but label it hopeless...
They are not rights if they can be taken away. They are privileges.
Exactly. A 'right' springs from within and cannot be granted to us, only given away or stolen by force by others. A 'right' is a product or outcome of our own personal sovereignty.
A 'privilege' on the other hand is granted by an external authority and can be removed without our consent. It is actually proof that we do not have complete and total personal sovereignty, that it is limited in some way or fashion.
Good rant CD.
Good point.
But how do we turn their propaganda and myths against them (esp. at the ballot box)?
rant? more like reasoned reproach to me.
sorry if that offends...but to me the Supreme Court must strike down the FISA system.
A "secret court system" making rulings concerning...American citizens? Decisions that involve their actual existence?
This flies in the face of not only liberty but of law itself...creating anarchy as a form of "legal construct."
The two institutions cannot exist simultaneously. Forget "serperate but equal"...you have something inherently provocative designed by the State to keep the masses "under control"...with no measure of efficacy to determine "is this generalized approach even working" let alone worth the risk. Has crime ended? a more "moral state of the people" been the result?
Far from it...violent video games, data breaches that rob massive sums from employers, Banks that have the legal protections of an extortion racket...where to point to the societal good here? What indeed is the purpose of law in all this?
People all over the World now cry out as the idea of Western Civility...let alone civilization...vanishes before its eyes in an orgy of "blow me a bigger one this time, Baby."
crazy.
and far from "neat and tidy" as it used to be "in the old days."
Where isn't there a Wild West now? I mean "you can't have a problem if we don't recognize it for even happening"?
When do we begin to see the rulings by the "secret Court" as the true basis for how the "law" will actually function here? (or should I say "here and abroad.") The opening of the Constitution is pretty simple...it says We the People..not "We the People of such and such." (therefore you...and you and you and you and are to be....)
I want to look to the Supreme Court as something rendering meaning in the modern world (Brown versus Board of Education.) instead it seems like the rest of us...steam rolled by a "digital domain" that has Rights over and above even the existence of man...let alone is "mere" being.
What Rights are left to a Supreme Court Justice?
I mean if the historical basis of "precedent" is simply ditched in the name of "exigencies of war" and "hail of bullets" it's pretty thin gruel to say "law" has any moral "feeling" here.
"Just keep the numbers as low as possible"?
Anarchism means no leader. I don't see how the word 'anarchy' fits into the statement 'creating anarchy as a form of "legal construct." '
to me the Supreme Court must strike down the FISA system.
why are you relying on the SC for anything?
Same reason people say a serving USSA president should be impeached.
Always good for a giggle that one.
@ COG - you can bet some form of national panic will be along directly. Putting aside all the cold war insurgencies in central America, ever since Grenada they have become addicted to eliminating exposure to repurcusions in law. When 9-11 is what they'll do to start a war, no one and no where will ever be safe and until this system is gone, and it takes a very big war to remove one of these. But every time they start a new ware to erode law that great war and collapse comes nearer. And its not a linear process. I really don't see uncle sam retiring to solitude and contemplation any time soon, and I'm sure you don;t think they will either. Best case, we get another cold war, worst case, we get a massive conventional conflict in Asia that spirals out of control. And if/when China pops and begins to come apart at the seams, look out, it will be so ON.
Really great write up btw.
"When 9-11 is what they'll do to start a war, no one and no where will ever be safe......."
This is why openly discussing the 9-11 fraud is the acid test not just for leadership, but for the average Jane and Joe. If "We the People" can't even acknowledge what the present day leadership is capable of doing to get their way, we cannot even begin to discuss real and lasting change.
Unfortunately people in great denial usually (but not always) require great pain to shake themselves awake.
Necessary illusions.
What do 9-11, JFK and Pearl Harbor have in common?
From the point of view of the elite, they are necessary acts to maintain their power which then require a necessary illusion to hide the act. This then becomes a thread in our common mythology...
Richard Evans commented, in his book The Rise of the Third Reich, that one of the more interesting points made by a sociological study conducted in Germany during the late 1920s and early 1930s was that, generally, the "working and middle class" followers did not understand the fine points of party ideology or policy, but instead merely followed their friends and the crowd in the street...
In an era of "spin" there is little that cannot be explained away, if there is no compelling counter narrative. And the only counter narrative that will gain traction in a propaganda dominated society is that which turns the society's myths and propaganda against itself... obviously and unambiguously and constantly.
And that effort requires a focal point -- something everyone can look forward to...
[PS] How are the new digs working out? Hope you're settling in and things are going well.
Nice comment.
The 'new digs' are working out well. We just weathered our first real snow storm up here. The mailman, who is in his 60's, said that he hasn't seen snow like this (24 inches more or less) since the 60's.
Check out this link for some of my commentry on The Storm(s).
Just a few weeks earlier we had some frozen fog. Really pretty.
Beautiful place. I'm somewhat envious (the snow storm). Haven't been snowed in for a long time. Miss it.
My only quibble is the sat tv antenna -- you know that stuff will rot your brain...
I look at that bill on a monthly basis and wonder why I'm paying it. We haven't had the TV on for over three weeks now, the day the New England Patriots lost in the playoffs if I remember correctly. I think the child unit has had it on a few times since, but not often.
There are a few things we do like to watch when they are 'in season'. Not network stuff, but some of the more off beat offerings as well as the occasional movie with Mrs. Cog.
When I was watching the Patriots I was astounded how bad the commercials were. I can't count the number of times I turned to Mrs. Cog and asked her how people could watch this garbage day in and day out.
"A "secret court system" making rulings concerning...American citizens? Decisions that involve their actual existence? This flies in the face of not only liberty but of law itself...creating anarchy as a form of "legal construct." "
Agreed! We are being told "Trust us, we are working in your best interest".
Bullshit. Too much evidence exists which indicates to me that MY interests are being trampled, not upheld.
The original American hoodwinking took place on March 4, 1789.
Centralized control of law is the ultimate monopoly - and monopoly is the anti thesis of justice.
The law should be simply stated as natural law - inviolate, not subject to change - and accessible to all. That is there should be no standing appointed courts - the people should raise a jury and form a court whever they need to - and these courts should be the supreme adminstrators of justice.
If this was the case - where people could just raise a court, set up a jury and do their own justice - you would see banksters and politicians danlging like decorations all over the western world.
Monopoly is the ultimate evil - and it is created through centralization. Decentralization means distribution of power, and the destruction of all types of authority - wherever the word authority appears, you know you are dealing with a monopoly and that it will act against the common good. Every human being should take on the roles of police, soldier and juror - then there is no separate armed group with which to oppress the people, and trying such a thing would lead to a court being raised - and court orders are the only way that force can legitimately be used.
Hi CD,
Excellent article. Could you please provide a few links for those of us interested in learning more about US government advance knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack on December 7th, 1941? What I do know is that Japan was the target of sanctions by the US - which is in itself an act of war - and had its access to oil disrupted by the US. The Japanese State department was trying to negotiate with the US and we terminated the negotiations. Thanks again - cheers!